Impact of Climate Change on Green Technology Innovation—An Examination Based on Microfirm Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the impact of climate change on green technology innovation in enterprises, set against the backdrop of increasingly severe global climate change. This topic not only holds significant theoretical importance but also plays a crucial role in guiding practical policy-making and enterprise management. Below are some suggestions for discussion and potential modifications.

 

Different enterprises experience varying impacts from climate change. For instance, industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, and energy are more vulnerable to climate change, while some sectors might even benefit from certain climate conditions. How can the impact of industry diversity on the results and Hypothesis 1 be considered?

 

The indicators used in this manuscript may not be sufficiently comprehensive. For example, in addition to temperature deviations, other climate change indicators such as precipitation changes and the frequency of extreme weather events could be introduced to provide a more holistic assessment of climate change impacts.

 

In evaluating green technology innovation, besides the number of patents, other indicators should be considered, such as the market share of green products, the proportion of green technology R&D investment in total R&D expenditure, and the degree of commercialization of green technologies. These additional metrics would offer a more comprehensive evaluation of enterprises' green technology innovation capabilities.

 

It is recommended to supplement and refine the policy recommendations. For each proposed policy, provide specific implementation plans and expected outcomes.

 

Climate change is a global issue. Consider adding a transnational comparative study by selecting several representative countries and regions. Compare their policies and business practices in addressing climate change to explore the similarities and differences under different institutional backgrounds.

 

It is suggested to include some charts or graphs to more intuitively present your research conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study uses data from Chinese A-share listed companies to explore the impact of climate change on green technology innovation. It examines factors such as entrepreneurs' green human capital, investor attention, and environmental regulations that may mitigate this impact. The study highlights the heterogeneity of this impact based on city types and company characteristics, offering valuable insights for policies and practices aimed at promoting green development. Given the issues with clarity and depth of analysis in the manuscript, I recommend that the authors undertake minor revisions.

1. The theoretical foundation behind the hypothesized relationship between climate change and green technology innovation needs further elaboration. For instance, using temperature deviation as the sole measure of climate change seems oversimplified. The impacts of climate change are multifaceted, extending beyond temperature to include phenomena such as precipitation and extreme events.
2. While robustness tests are conducted, the manuscript does not sufficiently address potential endogeneity issues. For example, there needs to be an explanation of how reverse causality is handled (i.e., firms with stronger green innovation capabilities may reduce their climate impact).
3. Some sections (such as the introduction and methodology) are overly lengthy, while others (such as the discussion) are underdeveloped. In particular, the introduction discusses green technology innovation in broad terms but does not adequately integrate how climate change fits into this narrative. A restructuring of the introduction to logically flow from climate change challenges to their specific impacts on innovation would improve clarity.
4. The heterogeneity analysis (e.g., resource-based cities, enterprise lifecycle) is valuable, but it lacks detailed explanations for why certain subgroups behave differently. For example, why are resource-based cities less affected?
5. The manuscript includes a wealth of tables, but the text lacks necessary explanations of these results. Avoid merely stating the results; instead, discuss their implications.

I hope these revisions will help improve the manuscript’s quality and clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses the effect of climate change on green technology innovation, which is an examination based on microfirm data that uses China as a case study. The paper is well structured, providing an empirical framework and robust data analysis. I will suggest some comments to improve the manuscript.

1.     The abstract is well presented and concise capturing key findings of the study, however it would be beneficial to include data source and also include the novelty of the study in the

2.     While the introduction provides a robust background on climate change and green technology, the transition to the micro-level firm analysis is abrupt. I will suggest that the authors include a bridging paragraph explaining why microfirm data provides unique insights compared to macro-level studies.

3.     While the literature review provides a comprehensive lens of viewing the subject, it is not presented in a critical manner. The authors should provide critical discussion of the literature the authors should include a paragraph summarizing the shortcomings of existing research and how this study fills them.

4.     I would love to see the authors justify the choice of the negative binomial regression model is justified. The methodology should also discuss how they handle concerns with regard to endogeneity. The authors should also justify why temperature deviation was selected over other climate indicators like precipitation. A section that provides a robust discussion on the potential limitations of the model and data would be desirable.

5.     The description of variables is clear but lacks detail on the variable "Green." How was the threshold for environmental knowledge determined?

6.     The baseline regression results are compelling. However, the discussion of coefficients could be more contextualized (e.g., what does a -0.147 coefficient mean in practical terms?). Furthermore, the robustness tests are well-executed. However, explain why specific tests (e.g., lagged effects) were prioritized over others (e.g., interaction effects with sector characteristics).

7.     In Lines 382-407, the section adequately shows the relationship between entrepreneurial human capital and mitigating negative impacts. However, it does not address whether these findings are consistent across firm sizes or industries.

8.     In your discussion section, please link your results and framework to the various sustainability goals that are relevant.

9.     Can the recommendation section also consider a broader perspective? It is presently streamlined to China. I will suggest that you add a subsection discussing how similar studies could inform international green innovation strategies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have attended to my concerns